At 18 you’re old enough to vote, old enough to buy property, join the military (17 with parental consent), engage in sex, but you can’t buy beer, can’t buy tobacco in some States, and according to Obama’s inJustice Department, can be denied access to guns.
The Obama administration, urging the Supreme Court to bypass a sweeping new gun rights plea by the National Rifle Association, told the Court Wednesday that Congress and state legislatures would not violate the Second Amendment if they denied access to firearms for youths under the age of twenty-one. The Court does not have to face that issue in this case, the government’s brief suggested, but it made the argument anyway, to answer an NRA claim.
Source: http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/11/u-s-argues-for-broad-limit-on-teens-gun-rights/
Sorry kids, no Dream Act for you if your dream is buying a gun. Dreams are for the people Obama likes, so if you weren’t born in Mexico and your mother didn’t drag you along the Rio Grand, you can’t dream but you can vote without ID.
the Justice Department brief said that “around the time of the Revolutionary War, persons under 21 often could not join the military without their parents’ consent…. After the war, the 1792 Military Act gave states discretion to impose age qualifications on service, and several states chose to enroll only persons age 21 or over, or required parental consent for persons under 21.”
Well, joining the military is not a right, it’s a privilege.
But, it added, “the fact that individuals under 21 served in some militias did not reflect any uniform expectation that those individuals would have the ability to procure firearms on their own. Rather, militia laws often assumed that enrollees under 21 lacked independent access to firearms, and they accordingly either required parents to provide their under-21 sons with guns or exempted those under 21 from having to furnish their own guns.”
Again, militias are private organizations, they can issue any requirements they want. Perhaps Obama thinks the 2nd Amendment is about joining a militia and not an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The government’s brief said the NRA case should not be reviewed, because there is no conflict among lower courts about the validity of the specific handgun ban at issue. It also said that the lower courts have agreed that the proper test of the constitutionality of restrictions on Second Amendment gun rights is a middle level of scrutiny, not the rigorous “strict scrutiny” that the NRA is advocating in this case.
Right, but when Arizona votes for laws that fight illegal immigration and demand voter ID’s, Obama doesn’t care about the courts and instead has his gestapo bossing them around.
I guess our “Constitutional Scholar” doesn’t understand the separation of powers, much less his oath to protect and defend the constitution.
The NRA case to which the government responded is one of two pending petitions that lawyers for the NRA have filed. The other is NRA v. McCraw (docket 13-390), raising similar issues about a series of Texas gun-regulating laws that make it a crime for a minor to carry a handgun outside of the youth’s home. Texas officials did not respond to that petition by an October 28 deadline, and the Court so far has not asked for a response. The case is currently scheduled to be considered by the Justices at their November 26 Conference, although the NRA in that case suggested that the Court might want to hold the case until it acted on the other case.
And this is why I keep my membership active, and sometimes donate to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
Folks, if the Republican Party wants the youth vote, it’s time to treat young people like adults. Lower the drinking age, lower the gun age, an 18 year old is an adult, and I don’t care if some of them are immature, there are plenty of immature old farts as well, yet we don’t deny people their rights on the basis of their maturity, it’s their ACTIONS that matter.
[…] Go to this article […]